In his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot,’ TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira takes a look at public attitudes toward the tax deal passed last month, and finds congressional conservatives hoping for further tax breaks for the rich on shaky ground. As Teixeira explains:

…A mid-December CNN poll showed that 75 percent supported the recently passed bill, which included an extension of Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, a partial payroll tax holiday, an extension of unemployment benefits, and a reduced estate tax. Just 23 percent were opposed.

The deal has good overall buzz, but in some provisions “most dear to conservatives hearts” resonated poorly with poll respondents, as Teixeira reports:

…Only 37 percent of the public favored the extension of tax cuts for the rich compared to 62 percent who where opposed. Similarly, 39 percent favored the reduction in the estate tax for wealthy Americans while 59 percent were opposed.
These findings stand in stark relief to public views about extending the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year (89 percent in favor/11 percent opposed), extending unemployment benefits (76 percent in favor/22 percent opposed) and a one-year reduction in the Social Security tax (62 percent in favor/36 percent opposed).

Worse, for conservatives,

…The public sharply differentiates between those elements of the tax cut bill that are broadly helpful to poor and middle-class Americans and those that are basically for the rich. And overall they believe the bill does too much for wealthy Americans. Fifty-six percent say that is the case compared to 35 percent who say the bill does about the right amount and 9 percent who believe the bill does too little.

As Teixeira concludes, “The tender concern of conservatives in Congress for America’s wealthy citizens and the public’s strong disagreement with that priority are two things that haven’t changed in the new year.”

Political bomb-thrower Darrell Issa got his due in a WaPo editorial yesterday, which held him to account for his characteristically over-the-top attack on the President, calling him “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.” When his charge fell flat, probably because no one, not even the President’s worst enemies, can cite even one instance of financial impropriety to enrich himself, Issa walked back and refocused his attack on the Administration, which he termed “one of the most corrupt administrations.” As the Post editorial said, “That is hardly more restrained or more responsible. It is in fact patently false.” The editorial continued:

Mr. Issa’s evidence for his assertion is – well, it would be an exaggeration to call it scant. “When you hand out $1 trillion in TARP just before this president came in, most of it unspent, $1 trillion nearly in stimulus that this president asked for, plus this huge expansion in health care and government, it has a corrupting effect,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
There can be disagreement over the wisdom of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the fund proposed by President George W. Bush in 2008 to bail out financial institutions and, eventually, car companies during the financial crisis. But under Mr. Obama’s leadership, TARP has ended up costing the taxpayer far less than originally anticipated; last fall the Congressional Budget Office estimated its eventual total cost at $66 billion. Similarly, it’s fair to argue that the stimulus was misguided or ineffective. But evidence of corruption in its administration is negligible, impressively so given the enormous sums involved.

As the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa’s integrity, or lack of it, will come increasingly into focus. If he chooses to exercise his authority as a hack ideologue, rather than a fair-minded, responsible public servant, he will earn the contempt of his more thoughtful constituents. As the Post editorial concluded:

Mr. Issa is about to be entrusted with one of the most serious jobs in Congress, armed with subpoena power reaching across the federal government. Oversight is a critical congressional function, one that too often has been abandoned. But Mr. Issa’s repeated, inflammatory rhetoric is not commensurate with a responsible exercise of that role. One of the first things over which the congressman needs to exercise better oversight is his own loose talk.

Mr. Issa, who CBS News has called “the richest member of congress,” cut his political chops in a failed 1998 campaign for Senate, in which he reportedly blew $10 mill of his own dough. Apparently he hasn’t yet learned that political bullying, whether with money or authority, often backfires.

You don’t have to be a political wonk to agree that President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address could be the one that truly merits the overworked designation, “the most important speech of his political life.” In addition to tapping the usual sources for guidance and inspiration, the President would be wise to consider the insights of some of the ‘best and brightest’ outside his immediate political orbit.
Toward that end, The Washington Monthly has an excellent round table, which should be of considerable interest to all Democrats, as well as the leader of the Party, “What He Should Say in the State of the Union.” The forum features a broad spectrum of leading Democratic thinkers, including TDS Co-Editors William Galston and Ruy Teixeira; Heather Hurlburt; Will Marshall; Howard Dean; Michael Kazin; Theda Skocpol; Debra J. Dickerson; Jeffrey Leonard; Andres Martinez and Bruce Bartlett.
As Galston sets the stage for the forum in his essay:

The ten “memos to President Obama” that we present in this issue of the Washington Monthly are thus, for me at least, a replay of sorts. They are an attempt to solicit fresh thinking for a White House that needs it now as much as we did back then. Certainly the drubbing Clinton received in 1994 was every bit as bad as the shellacking Obama got in November, and the political road ahead seemed to us no less forbidding than it must to the current administration. The good news is that after listening to outside advice, Bill Clinton reconceived his presidency in the face of the Gingrich Revolution, and that reconception led, two years later, to his reelection. Barack Obama can do the same.

The ten memos are full of nuggets, which the President and his speechwriters could mine and sift for innovative ideas and strategies. In fact, all Dems could benefit from giving the round table a sober reading

In his second Daily Kos post on filibuster reform, “The Progressive Benefits of Rules Reform,” Chris Bowers makes the case that the chief benefit of the filibuster reform proposals now being considered is ending GOP obstruction of presidential appointments.
Bowers argues that under the proposed Democratic reforms, “Most notably, the legions of vacancies in our federal judicial, regulatory, law enforcement and diplomatic departments would be nowhere as severe.” He offers Center for American Progress estimates of the large numbers of appointments being held hostage by the Republicans and the time it would take to get them confirnmed under existing filibuster rules. Bowers also cites alarming statistics from Ed Brayton’s post, “GOP Increases Control of Courts” at Dispatches from the Culture Wars:

A determined Republican stall campaign in the Senate has sidetracked so many of the men and women nominated by President Barack Obama for judgeships that he has put fewer people on the bench than any president since Richard Nixon at a similar point in his first term 40 years ago.
The delaying tactics have proved so successful, despite the Democrats’ substantial Senate majority, that fewer than half of Obama’s nominees have been confirmed and 102 out of 854 judgeships are vacant…
When Bush left office, Republicans had appointed just under 60 percent of all federal judges. Twenty months later, the number has dipped only slightly to a shade under 59 percent, according to statistics compiled by the liberal Alliance for Justice. Because of retirements, the percentage of Republican-nominated district judges actually has gone up.

Bowers has a pretty convincing closing argument about the importance of filling the appointments through filibuster reform:

Making the motion to proceed not subject to filibuster, and ending post-cloture debate time on nominations, would put an end to this. Nominations would only be blocked when there were 41 Senators opposed to the nomination. This would fill hundreds of these vacancies very quickly, making for a larger victory than any legislative accomplishment reasonably within the reach of Congressional Democrats in 2011-2012. The people enforcing and interpreting laws and regulations are just as important as the laws and regulations themselves, after all. Further, a government riddled with vacancies becomes a self-fulfilling conservative prophecy of a government that doesn’t function well.
None of this is to discount the potential political and messaging benefit of making the filibuster a real filibuster. It is entirely possible that by making the filibuster real, its use will be significantly reduced and attention to Republican obstructionism will be greatly heightened. However, relative to the concrete benefits of plugging hundreds of holes in the federal government, it is just more difficult to predict what impact the real filibuster will have.

In a couple of the comments following Bowers second post on the filibuster, respondents take issue with his assertion that “…it must be admitted that the current reforms being discussed, making the filibuster real and reducing opportunities for obstruction on nominations, would not have altered the outcome of any of the major legislative fights of 2009-2010.” As one respondent put it, “On first glance, yes, unless you take into account the way a talking filibuster can affect public opinion. The debate over the Civil Rights Act forced opponents to look ridiculous.”
For a more detailed understanding of the likely run-of-show on January 5, also check out Brian Beutler’s post, “The Senate’s Long, Twisted, Bumpy Road To Filibuster Reform” at Talking Points Memo. Main Street Insider also has an in-depth look at “S01E15 – The Merkley Proposal” up at MyDD.

Continuing our coverage of the ins and outs, pros and cons of filibuster reform now (Jan. 5th), Chris Bowers, a TDS advisory board member, opines on the topic in “Answering Progressive Fears About Filibuster Reform,” the first installment of a two-parter from his perch at Daily Kos.
Bowers offers two overlooked insights that merit more consideration. First, he emphasizes that “It will still take 60 votes to pass legislation or confirm nominations,” and:

…Many casual observers of the current rules reform fight have conflated this campaign with an attempt to put an end to the 60-vote threshold and go to a simple-majority Senate. This prospect worries quite a few people, especially now that Republicans have increased their number in Congress.
However, this campaign, even if successful, will not end the 60-vote Senate. Of the rules changes being discussed, none of them will prevent 41 Senators from blocking any nomination or legislation. Whether or not you want to see the 60-vote threshold lowered, the 60-vote threshold will not be lowered by this campaign. Period.
…New rules may shift the burden of a filibuster away from those seeking to break a filibuster, and toward those wishing to continue one. That is, 41 votes will be required to continue a filibuster, rather than the current 60 to break one…New rules will also require Senators to show up and engage in a televised talk-a-thon if they wish to filibuster. This will enact a public price for obstruction. Right now, Senators don’t even have to show up to filibuster–it’s painless. Together, these two changes would not end the filibuster, but they would make it a real filibuster.

This may not give much comfort to Dems who would like to see the filibuster threshold number reduced to 55 or so, but it does assuage the worries of those who are concerned that Dems will lose leverage if and when the GOP gains a Senate majority.
Bowers second often-overlooked insight is that “Republicans will change Senate rules no matter what we do,” — it is always a safe bet that Republicans will abuse the process in pursuit of their agenda, while Dems are more prone to agonize about it, often to the point where it stifles our efforts. Bowers amplifies:

…Republicans are going to change Senate rules the next time they are in charge no matter what Democrats do now. Lest we forget, in 2005 Republicans attempted to entirely abolish filibusters on judicial nominations. The GOP acted first on this one, not Democrats. And, as part of their general tendency to more aggressively apply unusual parliamentary procedure to further their goals, Republicans will act to change the rules again, no matter what we do now.

In his third point, Bowers weighs in against the progressive fear that “Senate obstruction helps conservatives more than progressives,” explaining:

Again, no. The only way making it more difficult to filibuster would reduce the ability of Senate progressives to block legislation is if there was actually a bloc of 41 progressive Senators willing to filibuster non-progressive legislation. There is no such bloc now, and there won’t be in 2011-2012 either.
In the short-term, no one will ever get 41 Senate Democrats to oppose any nomination or piece of legislation that is supported by both President Obama and a majority of the incoming House and Senate. Even during the inevitable times when President Obama will face significant opposition from Congressional Democrats over deals he cuts with the Republican leadership, 41 of the current 53 Senate Democrats will never, ever rise up in opposition to those deals. All of 12 returning Senate Democrats opposed the tax cut deal, for example. Senate Democrats are simply not a rambunctious enough bunch to find 41 of their number to oppose a Democratic President on anything.

Bowers concludes with a pitch to “sign up to make the filibuster a real filibuster.” There is no question that filibuster reform will have a major impact on Democratic prospects going forward, and this petition is a quick and easy way for supporters of the campaign to get involved and help the cause.

On January 5th, it appears that a majority of the Senate will vote to change its rules, barring unforseen GOP shenanigans, followed by another vote in which a majority of senators vote to reform the filibuster. The reason it seems like a done deal one week out is that all 53 returning Democratic senators have signed on a letter urging Majority Leader Reid to take up filibuster reform on that day, and they are not likely to settle for anything that preserves the status quo.
It is possible that some kind of weak compromise will keep the filibuster functionally alive, but crippled. But it is quite possible that Dems are ready to shred it, given the damage it has done and the way it has been abused by Republicans. Katrina vanden Heuval explains it exceptionally-well in her Washington Post op-ed:

…Back when Lyndon Johnson was majority leader in the Senate, he needed to file for cloture to end a filibuster only once. During President Obama’s first two years, Harry Reid filed for cloture 84 times. To put that in perspective, the filibuster was used more in 2009 than in the 1950s and 1960s combined.
Even as we acknowledge the progress we’ve made these past two years, we must never forget the policies that lie dead on the Senate floor at the hands of the filibuster. We got a Recovery Act, but a filibuster prevented it from being sufficiently large. We got health-care reform, but a filibuster killed the public option. We got Wall Street reform, but a filibuster killed provisions to break up the big banks. We got an extension of unemployment benefits, a payroll tax cut and more, but the threat of the filibuster killed our chances to do that without giving handouts to the wealthy.
……The filibuster was never intended to be wielded as a weapon of obstruction. Its current abuse was not contemplated by those who created it. Used this way, the filibuster does not just check the power of the majority; it cripples it. It is the very definition of minority tyranny, a concept as antithetical to democratic principles as any in the republic.

vanden Heuval then nails the case that now is the time to put a stop to it:

There is only one day in the year when the Senate can make changes to its rules without the fear of that process, itself, being filibustered – and that day is fast approaching. Jan. 5, 2011, will be the first day of the 112th Congress and, as such, the only day where a simple majority can vote to change the Senate rules (on all other days, 67 votes would be required)……The chances for reforming the filibuster may be the best in a generation.

And while it is unclear at the moment exactly which of the reforms proposed by Democratic Senators will be implemented, all of them are designed to end the present tryanny of the GOP minority, as vanden Heuval explains:

The options they offer are simple and unquestionably reasonable. Sens. Udall and Merkley have put forward what has become known as the “constitutional option,” a basic two-step process in which 51 senators first agree to adopt new rules, and then 51 senators agree on a reform package. Their package probably would not end the filibuster altogether. But it wouldn’t need to. Procedural changes – such as preventing a filibuster on the motion to proceed, shortening the amount of debate allowed between cloture motions and ending the unconscionable practice of anonymous holds – have the potential to remake the Senate.
These reforms would prevent a single senator from wielding the filibuster against the entire body and would allow the majority to challenge the minority without wasting precious floor time. Perhaps most important, the act of revising the rules in response to abuse may in itself serve as a check on the minority, a warning that the overreach of the type the GOP perfected during the 111th Congress will not be tolerated in the future.

If everything goes according to plan, we’ll have to redefine the GOP acronym meaning from “Gridlock, Obstruction and Paralysis,” at least for senate Republicans, to something like…”Game Over, Pachyderms.”

Republicans are understandibly excited by their upcoming House majority. But if they think their popularity will give them an edge over President Obama, they are headed for disappointment. So concludes TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira’s analysis of a Washington Post/ABC News poll in his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot.’:

In the poll, respondents were asked whether they trusted President Obama or the Republicans in Congress to do a better job with the main problems facing the country. The public trusted President Obama more by a 43-38 plurality.
Obama’s margin on this question is slim, but it’s still quite a contrast to the analogous question asked after the 2006 election by the same pollsters. At that point, President George W. Bush was only trusted by 31 percent of the nation to cope with the country’s problems–far less than the 57 percent who trusted the Democrats in Congress.

And when it comes to helping the middle class in particular, Teixeira notes, President Obama’s edge increases significantly:

Perhaps one reason President Obama has this level of trust is because he is still viewed as being on the side of the middle class. Fifty-three percent in the same survey thought President Obama could be trusted to do a better job of helping the middle class, compared to just 38 percent who trusted Republicans in Congress to do the better job.

Some Republicans may think they can gain traction by attacking the President. But after everything that’s happened so far, they are still spinning their wheels.

Despite all of the grumbling about Obama dissing his progressive base, the more serious mistake is the Administration’s failure to mobilize the Organizing for America (OFA) grassroots network represented by 13 million email addresses, says Obama’s chief campaign blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen, in his WaPo article “Why is Obama leaving the grass roots on the sidelines?”

Obama entered the White House with more than a landslide victory over Sen. John McCain. He brought with him a vast network of supporters, instantly reachable through an unprecedented e-mail list of 13 million people. These supporters were not just left-wing activists but a broad coalition that included the young, African Americans, independents and even Republicans – and they were ready to be mobilized.
…Yet at seemingly every turn, Obama has chosen to play an inside game. Instead of actively engaging supporters in major legislative battles, Obama has told them to sit tight as he makes compromises behind closed doors.

Graham-Felsen cites the example of the tax cut battle, in which an OFA spokesman said the network would be mobilized when the time is “ripe.” But it didn’t happen. Then there was the health care battle, in which OFA members were encouraged to push for generalized “reform,” instead of focusing on the public option, and Graham-Felson notes that he was urged to contact his senator, who was already a supporter, rather than target supporters of a centrist in another state, “who was blocking reform.”
OFA’s story is one of missed opportunities made more regrettable by its great potential, as Graham-Felson explains:

Obama has made it clear that, for the most part, his administration isn’t seriously interested in deploying this massive grass-roots list – which was once heralded as a force that could reshape politics as we know it – to fight for sweeping legislative change. It’s a shame. In the few instances that the White House has meaningfully engaged the grass roots, OFA has shown that it has real clout. It’s possible that the health-care bill, limited though it was, would not have passed were it not for decisive action from OFA in the final hours. When OFA members were finally asked to contact other Obama supporters in key legislative districts and after congressional offices were flooded with phone calls, letters and personal visits, several of the final holdouts in Congress were swayed to support the bill. Imagine if that aggressive, bottom-up approach had happened earlier in the process.

OFA’s future can be much brighter, provided the Administration makes a commitment to deploy it more forcefully going forward, and the stakes are high:

If the White House wants to keep its grass-roots supporters at bay during major legislative fights, that’s its choice. But there’s a larger problem looming.
Obama needs this list in 2012 – and he needs its members to dig much deeper than in the last election. The Citizens United ruling has allowed campaigns to become an unprecedented corporate cash free-for-all – and Obama will likely need to raise far more than $500 million from the grass roots to be competitive.
While Obama’s political team intensely focuses on independents, the grass-roots list seems like an afterthought. Every time Obama chooses to compromise behind closed doors, and keeps OFA quiet, he might win over a few independents. But he’s also conveying a message that the grass roots doesn’t really matter, that the bottom-up ethos of his candidacy doesn’t apply to his presidency.
On Thursday, Obama and White House staff met with a group of OFA volunteers who presented survey data and anecdotes on the state of the grass-roots base since the midterm elections. This is a positive sign, but the White House should move beyond gestures. Obama needs a senior adviser whose job is to be a liaison to the movement that elected him. This person needs to be in the room in senior-level strategy meetings, asking: How is this going to impact the list? What message will this send to the grass roots?
Obama needs twice as much grass-roots support in the next election – and he’s not going to get it by sidelining his supporters. If he continues to play politics as usual, Obama risks alienating not just the left but anyone who believed in the promise of bringing change to Washington.

It’s critical, not only for the Administration, but also for Democratic prospects in coming elections that the OFA network list be updated and its members be fully engaged in legislative struggles, as well as election campaigns.